For example my tank and infantry units are located adjacent to an enemy unit that has 2 figures left. I want the tank to be able to take ground and overun. My plan is to soften up the enemy unit by depleting it to just 1 unit with my infantry. I want to role just 1 die to do this and THEN MY tank can go in for the kill.

Hmmm... I had thought about this over the Christmas holiday while playing the Pavlov scenario.

I am not so sure we should dismiss this idea so quickly.

This is surely a good question for the FAQ.

"Is it mandatory to roll the full amount of dice on an attack?"
"If able to roll three dice can a unit opt to roll one or two instead?"

I have not seen anything in the rules that states if an attacker can roll three dice that he must do so.

The OP is right about using infantry to possibly soften a defender where an armor unit can finish it off and overrun the position.

This tactic could be very useful in the Sword of Stalingrad scenarios or ones that use the combat deck.

While not rolling all the dice is counter to the way we've all been playing, changing the number of dice will cause one to reconsider their strategy and that of the opponent. I do agree that one would likely be better off rolling the full allotment but the reducing tactic may be sound. How many times have you eliminated an enemy unit and left an ordered unit of yours waving in the wind?

I would be interested to see what RB has to say on the subject.

I would also be interested in hearing what the ruling would be for the other C&C games.

Here are two pastes from the basic rule book, page 9. These are talking about the basic number of dice, before terrain and card adjustments. I've underscored a couple of words that seem to be pretty clear.

"An ordered Infantry unit may battle any enemy target unit 3 or fewer hexes away. It rolls 3 dice in close assault (enemy on adjacent hex), 2 dice against a target at 2 hexes, and 1 die against a target at 3 hexes."

Of course, if you want to ask your opponent if you may roll fewer than the allotted number of dice, he may say yes. What two consenting players do in the privacy of their own game is between them, and them alone.

Surely the challenge is for the general to decide whether his armour can take out a full strength unit and then overrun, or whether he will need the support of the the infantry to weaken the unit first.

Can anyone really imagine a real-life commander telling a unit to target an enemy unit but "don't shoot too well, we want the tanks to finish them off in a minute."

As far as I can see, the only time this could make any sense historically, would be if units were allowed to pick multiple targets, and therefore split their attack dice between the two. (Half of you shoot at them, the other half shoot at the others), but that would very quickly get very complex and confusing.

Surely the challenge is for the general to decide whether his armour can take out a full strength unit and then overrun, or whether he will need the support of the the infantry to weaken the unit first.

Can anyone really imagine a real-life commander telling a unit to target an enemy unit but "don't shoot too well, we want the tanks to finish them off in a minute."

As far as I can see, the only time this could make any sense historically, would be if units were allowed to pick multiple targets, and therefore split their attack dice between the two. (Half of you shoot at them, the other half shoot at the others), but that would very quickly get very complex and confusing.

Remember that we are simulating a combined arms attack here - infantry supported by tanks. In reality the attack / fight would be a confused affair so trying to manage that by rolling less die seems unhistorical and unrealistic. What would make sense is for a unit to pull back (a flag roll) to avoid being overrun by armour and that's more likely if you follow the rule of rolling the full allocation of dice.